Now see for yourself: For Argyll challenges anyone to say SPR plans for Argyll Array at Tiree are acceptable

After making spurious claims that they had already done so – exposed by the vigorous No Tiree Array campaigners against the massive offshore wind farm embracing the Isle of Tiree – Scottish Power Renewables has at last published its official collection of scale-accurate photo-montages of the array in situ.

You will find that there are two suites of images from each of four viewpoints – one for a 10MW installation and one for a 6MW installation.

The location and spectrum of vision of each viewpoint is also mapped; and there are maps giving a visual display of the territories in Tiree and its sister Isle of Coll from which various numbers of turbines will be visible.

It is worth noting that, even with the 6MW installation, there are place on the Isle3 of Coll from which the maximum number of turbines would be visible.

Each photo-montage comes in two parallel version – the photo-montage view with the turbine3s shown in white and the Photowire view where they are shown in red.

The suite of images reinforce how gross this plan actually is. Living on Tiree would be like living with the permanent presence of the biggest regatta the world has ever seen. There is no longer a horizon and these boats never move on.

We understand that Karl Hughes of the No Tiree Array campaign has at last had written acknowledgement from SPR that they will now study the micro climate implications for Tiree.

They have not detailed what this study would entail but the fact that they are to undertake it is an admission that the campaigners were in charge of the facts in insisting that the creation of a micro-climate was a real issue.

When you look at the extent and depth of this installation, it defies logic to deny that it is likely to generate a micro-climate. This needs serious research.

There is widespread interest in whether even the the onshore Sites of Special Scientific Interest might be affected?

The Skerryvore reef is on a Joint Nature Conservation Committee (JNCC) list as a ;highly possible’ Marine Protected Area (MPA) for a various reasons – this is in addition to the JNCC’s recommendation that Special Protection Area (SPA) status should also be placed on areas surrounding and within the proposed Argyll Array – or Tiree Array – area.

The Scottish Government – in defiance of evidence and in the absence of more – has been consistently minded to permit this development.

Now that anyone can see for themselves just how this installation will impact on Tiree, it will be interesting to see if there is any shift in this position.

The pictures are from the sites where the array would be most visible, and in the clearest conditions. If you look at the zones of theoretical visibility, even for the larger turbines most parts of Tiree will not see more than a few turbines in one direction. Yes it will affect the view, a bit, but these visualisations put the lie to the idea that the turbines would dominate the landscape, or in any way affect tourism.

It’s time to take a balanced view of whether the economic and environmental benefits are worth a few white poles on the horizon that you will have to hunt to see from most directions.

As you cannot recognise your feet you would obviously do well to recognise the fact that these are visible as far away as Barra, Islay, Iona, Mull…please look again at the zones of theoretical visibility..and SPR’s intention to publish further images from other locations. Tiree is flat…we have no tree cover, it is fair to say that a swath of horizon through 180o will be swamped with these turbines…we have some of the highest rates of sunshine/rain free days in Scotland…minimal mist and fog. True we may not be able to see all the turbines…much in the same vein as “cannot see the forest for the trees”. View apart…there are un ascertained affects to our climate, Crofting, our onshore SSSi’s, our (internationally recognised)water sports venue, our International Aviation Radar Station, Internationally recognised endangered species of Birds, marine life, a grade ‘A’isted iconic building of international importance…etc, etc, etc, etc…this is before even broaching the socio-economic and cultural implications. (I do doubt if you will see them from Glasgow ?)

Tiree is not as flat as you claim, most of the turbines will be hidden by the hills at the western end of the island from most viewpoints. Certainly I’d see very little from my house, and all I would see would be confined to a few degrees of the horizon in one or two directions.

I refer you to my last..and I agree I would not be able to see the turbines from inside my house…if that is where I chose to remain…unfortunately our tourist industry depends on the view. In your case, I suggest that you put the aesthetic issues to one side and focus on the other implications…there should be more than enough to keep you busy. I presume you live to the north of one of the three hills…which make up approx 15% of the island.

FYI: Highest point on Tiree is Beinn Hynish @ 141m…Turbines are expected to be 200+m. Tiree is classed as:”a low lying Island with no tree cover and expansive seascapes” SNH’s words,,,not mine.

Of course there are certain houses in specific spots on Tiree that will have a very limited view of the Array . Of course any house at the bottom of one of Tiree’s 3 small hills (145m)will have a limited view of the proposed Array (200m) .

From my own house, from the ground floor I will see only the tops of the closer turbines, but from my upstairs, I will will see a considerable portion of the total Array.

Your “view” can be put in its true Tiree visual perspective if any reader goes to the ‘Visualisations’ page of the NTA w/site and clicks on the OBAN TIMES VIDEO This was made incorporating the SPR visualisations that SPR have now posted on their w/site.

The visual evidence of the negative visual impact of the proposed Array is all there to see,and might explain why it has taken 11 attritional months to get SPR to produce these what they could have done 11 moths ago

And SPR’s reason for this 11 months refusal was quote ” It’s not consumer friendly to put such large files on line”unquote

“The common enemy of humanity is man. In searching for a new enemy to unite us, we came up with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine and the like would fit the bill. All these dangers are caused by human intervention, and it is only through changed attitudes and behavior that they can be overcome. The real enemy then, is humanity itself.” - Club of Rome-

Webcraft: I too really do wish we could have more contact with the, “for” the Tiree Array folk…at present it seems to be some key members of TCDT, one family business, two crofters… and one lone person who has a problem with anybody who was not born on Tiree.. It has been a good while ago since they raised their hands in support…I do not even know if their support still exists. I know of only one fishing boat that was (past hence) in support of the array…all who have shown support have only vocalised the possible fiscal gain they may be open too. Respectfully: What do you think of the images at “face value” ? Karl

I haven’t spoken to anything like enough people about it to comment. NTA have been very vocal, but outside of An Tirisdeach I’ve not seen much of either side.

I think the vehemence of NTA has put people off raising their head above the parapet – opponents think NTA has it covered and those who are pro or neutral feel besieged.

I want to know what the implications of the array are for Tiree, and for the local ecology, but my natural presumption is in favour of renewable energy. NTA seem, too often, to be just grabbing anything they can find to throw at SPR to see what sticks, including far too much from climate change denial grab-bag.

I think there needs to be some serious analysis, not just scaremongering, of the economic, social and environmental effects of the array, and a committment in any formal proposal to mitigate any negative effects (and there will be some, one way or another). It might even be that SPR needs to consider direct compensation to those worst affected, at the western end of Tiree, and to those employed in affected industries. It’s not without precedent for rural communities with access to significant natural resources to be compensated for their extraction – Alaska provides an interesting model in that regard.

Basically I’d like to see an analysis of the situation in the round, and see the costs and the benefits considered, and any proposal organised to benefit Tiree as much as possible. There is significant potential for permament skilled employment associated with power generation, and I would hope to see SPR funding training to ensure that young people from Tiree are able to take up those jobs when the time comes.

I haven’t spoken to anything like enough people about it to comment. NTA have been very vocal, but outside of An Tirisdeach I’ve not seen much of either side. Karl Where as we have been speaking to people for 3 years.(This is what opposition is about) I think the vehemence of NTA has put people off raising their head above the parapet – opponents think NTA has it covered and those who are pro or neutral feel besieged. Karl (vehemence – intensity or forcefulness of expression; “the vehemence of his denial”; “his emphasis on civil rights” etc….yes we do carry out our campaign with vehemence…Thanks) The neutral feel nothing they are by definition neutral…as you yourself admit the pro lobby are to a large degree silent…why ? I do not know. I want to know what the implications of the array are for Tiree, and for the local ecology, but my natural presumption is in favour of renewable energy. Karl: NTA are in favor of renewable energy…most if not all of our members supported Tilley…some are on the board of TREL NTA seem, too often, to be just grabbing anything they can find to throw at SPR to see what sticks, including far too much from climate change denial grab-bag. Karl we do not grab at straws in the wind…we are in dialogue with all stakeholders and raise issues if they have not been previously raised…we then bang on the door of all parties to get an answer…the vast majority of our points are raised by the community (both on and off Tiree) And every issue we have raised so far has, or is now in process. As for climate denial change grab-bag…please quantify this statement are you referring to human accelerated climate change or natural ? clarify what you mean and we will address it…I know of no members or supporters of NTA who openly denie mans impact on world climate…and I would like to know who you are refering too. I think there needs to be some serious analysis, not just scaremongering, of the economic, social and environmental effects of the array, and a commitment in any formal proposal to mitigate any negative effects (and there will be some, one way or another). Karl: This is happening ‘No’? is this not what all the consultations are about ? is this not what NTA is about ? must do better. It might even be that SPR needs to consider direct compensation to those worst affected, at the western end of Tiree, and to those employed in affected industries. It’s not without precedent for rural communities with access to significant natural resources to be compensated for their extraction – Alaska provides an interesting model in that regard. (please give a Ref: to this statement…doc.pdf*, article) Karl: Now we seem to get down to the nitty gritty…how much is our Island and all that goes with it worth ? what price the environment…? Whats in it for me ? This does not need an answer it is an answer in itself. Basically I’d like to see an analysis of the situation in the round, and see the costs and the benefits considered, and any proposal organized to benefit Tiree as much as possible. Karl: I refer you to my last There is significant potential for permanent skilled employment associated with power generation, and I would hope to see SPR funding training to ensure that young people from Tiree are able to take up those jobs when the time comes. Karl: Since day one both the pro and against lobby have asked SPR to quantify how many jobs would actually be generated on Tiree ? No assurances of any form have either come from the developer or Scottish Government… We do however have one man who has taken on a role as a SPR liaison officer…this is a part time position, which is just as well as he has a croft to run. There is also a part time position as a Fisheries liaison officer…again part time, and talking with the fishermen they are still 100% against the array and also have never broached the subject of compensation…they do not want the array QED. In regards to SPR offering training in the Renewables sector…this is happening with their support, but it is doubtful if any career opportunities will be island based. Lachie you know the facts.

Webcraft…I agree with you…all sides of the argument should be on the table..but we hear little from the pro lobby (such is the way of island life ?) The pseudo neutral lobby of the core members of the unelected TCDT seem to be more involved in quantifying handouts …but their minutes of meetings and communication with the general public of Tiree is abismal. And all though some of the folk in the trust do genuinly enhance island life thinking about people and not financial gain…islanders generally view the majority of the trust inner clique as middle class business owners with personal financial gain at heart,these types of life changing events bring both the best and worst out in people.

Your allusion to the proposed Tiree Array as being no more than a “ few white poles on the horizon that you will have to hunt to see from most directions” is comparable to Patrick Harvie’s (Green MSP) allusion to the Aberdeen Array being a “thumbnail on the horizon” and Mr S Hosie’s(SNP MP ),statement that it was a ‘speck in the ocean somewhere miles away’.

For that to be the case then, according to SNH Visualisation Guidelines, any Array would have to be 50 km off shore, and not in the Aberdeen Array ‘s case,3 km off shore,and in the proposed Tiree Array’s case 5 km offshore.

The proposed Tiree Array will be 180-300 London Gherkin sized structures visible from most directions on Tiree.

Note SPR stated their visualisations were taken in ‘best visibility’ conditions. This was not the case. Met Office data and reports do not confirm SPR’s statement,but do confirm that ‘best visibility’ conditions existed from 6 hours after SPR took the required photos.

Several routes for the transmission lines are under review…inc 2 across Mull, one south of Mull, one North of Mull…the cables would then run up the Etive..not under Connel Bridge as the cable drums are too large.

According to the Minutes of a recent Mull Community Council meeting at which a representative of SPR gave information on the possible route of the transmission lines, the ones they are looking at are the sea route south of Mull to just north of Oban and the route through Loch Na Keal to Salen, down to somewhere near Craignure and then over to Oban and down the road to Dalmally.

You may be interested to note the following from the SPR Scoping Request to Marine Scotland p61

++ There are no National Scenic Areas or local areas of panoramic quality designated on Tiree or Coll . The closest such designatinos are on Mull, around Loch na Keal . The Loch na Keal National Scenic area is arouind 24 km formt he Argyll Array site boundary ++

I cycled round Mull last year in glorious weather, and can confirm that anyone who wants a stunning view of the proposed Tiree Array only has to pull over into any layby above Inch Kenneth.

So,not only will the proposed Array destroy this protected view but,transmission issues may require pylonage in and around Loch na Keal.Caveat Emptor

According to the SPR, the land route from Loch na Keal would be put underground; same for following the road down to “somewhere near” Craignure. The same will apply for the stretch on the mainland to Dalmally – it’ll be road hell on and off for two years!

The Tiree Array will also be visible from the road running down from Reudle; that amazing view of Beinn More, Gribun cliffs over the Ross to Iona and the Treshnish.

Karl / NTA – Have they given dimensions for each of the proposed turbine designs yet ? Pleasant surprise to wake up to this morning – I think the Scottish anti wind turbine army has just been given the greatest boost possible.

Hi Malcolm..I prefer where possible to stay focused on local issues…ie: Tiree Array. Obviously, with this being one (Largest) of the proposed strategic arrays there is massive cross over into the general anti-commercial windfarm debate. You will find some staggering images on the SPR site. The montages assume either 300 turbines @ 6mw each or 180 turbines @ 10 mw each (given that there are few proven 10mw turbines I am inclined for now to focus on the 6mw) 10mw: Hub Height: 116.65/Rotor dia: 164m/ Max Tip Height 198.65m………6mw: Hub Height 86.65/ Rotor dia: 126m/ Max Tip Height149.65m………it’s all on Scottish Power Renewables (Iberdrola) website…on first viewing there are many anomilies…but we should take them at face value…they are shocking enough. However…all the turbines show monopile bases…is this feasible in granite and Lewisian Gneiss ? I am told no. SPR have used some of the original NTA view points…but not the more sensational ones…the methods of photography are on par with our own….I wonder how much they paid for these duplicates when they could have used NTA’s originals.:) for free… You may be interested to know that on the back of release of these images…after a long delay SPR have also contacted me in regards to “local climate change issues”…saying they do intend to investigate possible affects of the array on Tirees climate… That apart from a delay in the granting of SPA status for areas in and around the proposed location…there seems now after much searching of documents, to also be the same situation in regards to the Skerryvore Reef and it’s MPA status…(Pelican Brief ?) Karl

Correct Stephen…the images should be “taken at face value”…there is not even a suitable 10mw turbine on the market yet…and all turbines chosen also have to have gone through the commercial 3 year test phase.

Stephen – I am at the moment creating a scale 3D hillside CAD model of a 23 turbine wind farm being proposed for up North. You probably have no idea how much concentration, time,effort and even computer power that requires. I usually start at 6.30 am and put in 10 / 12 hour days, most days. Therefore I was otherwise occupied and decided that the easiest way to get the info was to ask Karl. Unlike you, I didn’t have the time to spare to go searching, nor was it important to me at 6.40 this morning. Your apology is expected !

An interesting little picture, Malcolm, but for the way in which the base of the ‘thumbnail’ has been set lower than those of both the turbines and the Skerryvore lighthouse; it might be just incompetent CADmanship, or it could be seeking to ‘doctor’ the comparisons – in either case, I’d like to hear Patrick Harvie’s side of the story before passing judgement.

There are so many variables in trying to put “perfect” visualisations together…the first rule of thumb from a commercial enterprise:would be to put a worst case senario on the table, as early as possible, let people live with it and get used to it…prior to reducing the number (it’s a simple sell to the niave)…or actually establishing where the turbines would actually be places (thus SPR’s studies)…all in all the aesthetics debate is a specific issue on Tiree as it run’s parallel with so many of the deeper implications…so don’t be drawn by the developers mind-games. So again I would take these images totally at face value. They do however open an inroad into the far reaching implications for Tiree as a place to live and a place to visit. What hasn’t been noted is our low sun azimuth in the winter months and the stark Silhouette these will present throughout the day…or the loss of our ‘noted’ dark night skies. Of greater concern to me at the moment is why SNH have, as a primary consultee neither notified Marine Scotland or the developer (Scottish Power Renewables Iberdrola) of the recommendation by the JNCC that the waters around Tiree should be SPA status and indeed the Skerryvore Reef area meets and exceeds the criteria for both SPA and MPA (Marine Protection Area)… Why the delay in acreditation ? they already far exceed the criteria for full nomination ! I can only guess why….and this point stinks…

I am thankfull at least that SPR now intend to investegate the possible implications of the array to our Tiree climate,and the affects this will have on our agriculture, SSSI’s and windsport tourism.. There are already more than enough reasons to drop this specific project…social-economic and environmental.

Just move the square representing the thumbnail up a bit – surely even you are capable of doing that – the graphic is correct to the centimetre. Incidentally not only did Mr Harvie offer untruths on that day, but I have just proved that an even more bumptious MSP (SNP) told an even bigger porky to the assembled members of the public,press and media – and almost got away with it – until now !!!!!

I think the biggest issue here is that neither side at the recent circus meeting had their act together…much of what was said was subjective…(Alex rubbed his hands with glee having ensured the debate became a farce…he is a master player…a consumate player of persona’s) this coming from un-elected members of the public is fair enough…but subjective comments from elected members of parliment, or indeed disrespectfull gestures eminating from elected members of parliment should raise eyebrows if not questions…after all I am sure they put in their expenses claims at the end of the day and we foot the bill…the issues involving wind power have such far reaching consequences on both a local and global level that we need debate backed by fact…not political posturing and showmanship…what ever happened to plain speaking and respect…I fear that it ended when politicians entered the ranks of the pseudo professional.

Leaving aside the very important matter of aesthetics for a minute, I find it unbelievable that rational (?) human beings would even contemplate cluttering a dangerous stretch of sea with additional hazards of this kind. How dare we make the sea even more challenging for our sailors? Why did the Stevensons risk their lives building Skerryvore? For fun? Is that not, in itself, sufficient reason to give this scheme the thumbs down? I am broadly in favour of renewable energy – I have been interested in it since boyhood – but not at a cost like this, and on this scale. I have no problems with Tilley, though other people have. I hardly notice her as I pass. I recognise the need for communities to survive, and develop beneficial income streams. But I have many problems with this monstrous (in every sense) proposal. Being a seaman at heart, I think immediately of the implications for navigation…and shudder when I see such maritime ‘decorations’ elsewhere. I hope that the hard granite of Tiree and its shelf will finish off the proposal.

Pretty lousy picture – means nothing – what size is the finger nail – how far from the camera – what distance off are the turbines – what size are the turbines. What’s the point of offering something like this ? Lets have some detail and accuracy.

Hi Stephen…Wrong! Wrong ! Wrong! Nothing to do with them being over the horizon.http://boatsafe.com/tools/horizon.htm Try this ! If you stand on the beach at the lowest astronomic tide…an observer standing on the beach with h = 1.70 metres (5 ft 7 in) (average eye-level height), the horizon is at a distance of 4.7 kilometres (2.9 mi). Most of these images were taken at +10m (some + 30m) + so you are looking at a distance way in excess of 4.7 km. It’s one of the numerous errors we have come to expect from Scottish Power Renewables…and really makes little difference to the overall shock of the images… Wrong again ! The bases (lattice) are in general not completely submerged see:http://www.no-tiree-array.org.uk/ If you are following the Tiree Array fiasco you will realise that the view is but one of the contributing factors to the mass objections…not the sole factor. Such is the popular opinion against the abomination called the Argyll Array ,Scottish Power Renewables (Iberdrola) is now, even having to fight their corner in the Oban Times… Not sure what the relevance of the photo is ?is it that the turbines are not turning due to lack of wind ??? .

The cost of the whole thing – wind farm – and grid. The estimate to lay the grid from the proposed Shetland wind farm to the mainland – about twice the distance from Tiree to the mainland – was £650 million + + +

Malcolm: I didn’t mean to upset you, because you probably haven’t got time. It’s just that, if someone presents opinion as fact, it should be credible – and I think you’d find that the proposed undersea power link between Shetland and Scotland is a good deal more than twice as long as the proposed link from the Tiree array. I see that you sometimes ask questions of others because you don’t have time to do your own homework, but the trouble is that you wind up promoting stuff like that poor quality ‘thumbnail’ graphic and then getting annoyed when it’s criticised.

Please do not quote me on this but I seem to remember the cost was over 4 billion. Robert at NTA will have a better idea on the figures originaly quoted. On another note and off at a pretty wild tangent: The proposal to build is delayed due to environmental issues (would love to see what is in the Oban Times, but not delivered to Basra)…SPR say the extension of Environmental studies has caused this delay…this poses a monsterous question for all offshore development on at least the west coast. The more the input on environmental surveys to unravel the complex ecological issues, the more the ecological issues come to the fore. SPR wish to understand what is in the area so they can mitigate impact…mitigation does not mean removal of impact, it means to reduce impact to “as low as is reasonably possible”… The “low” bar in the case of the Tiree is obviously going to be quite high…at what point is too high a reason to cancel the project ? This bar is set by the Scottish Government and ultimately the EU. It is more that obvious that given the already extensive surveys carried out by the likes of the JNCC in the proximate area of Tiree, that simply having SPA/MPA or SSSI status is not enough to stop a development in it’s tracks. If it was then SPR would not be here. One has to cast ones mind back to SPR’s comments at the original community consultation meeting…it was stated that only the discovery of an exceptionally rare species would or could stop the project.(or words to that effect). Do we then obviously assume that in the case of the Argyll aka Tiree Array the bar was already set way back when, by the Scottish Government, and in the case of this project that the bar was set so low that the environment comes in second place to the development. Only time will tell…but ? but there is definately a “smoking gun” issue in regards to why full SPA status has been slow to arrive…until it does, another species following on from the great Northern Diver debacle has now excuse the pun “raised it’s head” and again SNH have note raised the issue with either the developer or Marine Scotland they have again missed, or delibrately neglected to add a species. In the sublittoral zones of Tiree and also the south coast of Col, the relatively exposed nature of the area restricted sedimentary habitats to coarser sands and gravels, in which the large cerianthid anemone Arachnanthus sarsi has been recorded for the first time in Britain (Dipper 1981) It never ceases to amaze me what information is out there if you keep looking…and SPR have an awfull lot of looking to complete…and SNH have an awfull lot of explaining to do.!

Oh dear, Scots Renewables! That’s a weak response. Och, och, och… Plotters and GPS are only one part of the equipment needed for navigation, and they do not save you from storms and such like. Come to think of it, they could have saved Australia and New Zealand from some very nasty incidents of late, if your argument is sound. The logic of your argument implies that we can remove lighthouses, marker buoys (like those in the Sound of Gunna, and the entrance to Castlebay) because they have been superseded by GPS and Plotters. Hey ho! Tell that to the Marines, Scots Renewables – or even to a CalMac Master! We also need to consider the effect of such ‘clutter’ on marine life etc. Has a study of that been made? Are the proposed tide turbines for the Sound of Islay ecologically OK? I know that one has been tested (successfully) for energy output (news of that yesterday), but what about their other implications? Given all the ‘shouting’ about the environment nowadays – it will soon be a crime to walk on grass – I should have thought that testing of that kind would have been an absolute priority before any moves were made to build turbines of any sort!

RE. storms: Skerryvore Lighthouse never saved anyone from a storm, it merely showed them where they were. GPS does this rather more precisely. I love seeing lighthouses when I am at sea, taking bearings, plotting it on the chart etc – but nowadays it is a game really. Even on our small yacht we have 4 independent GPS systems. Lighthouses are pretty much redundant as navigational aids.

Your comments re. the Sound of Islay project are incomprehensible. It IS the testing . . . the first (small) grid-connected tidal energy scheme of its kind. It is only 10MW and takes up a tiny area of seabed. Much will be learned from it.

Is there anything you are in favour of, or would you rather not have electricity?

Not everyone is as up to speed on issues as you and I webcraft. Navigation, Environment, Socio-economic, aethetics, culture, law and order,housing, water, sewage, weather, tourism, crofting, schooling, medical provision, roads, helicopters, harbours, ferry provision etc…etc…make our minds up ! you have no idea of what being on the other side of the fence involves Webcraft.

Rather than be mocking all who have less knowledge… you would do well to take the time and the route of explaining things in an objective fashion…it may pay dividens ? If you support wind for the right reasons you must also be able to put yourself in the other persons shoes…

As for Donalds comments they are based on a substantial background in his field and a lifetime living on Tiree and in Argyll…you might want to do an internet search…or check out amazon…they are all great reads.

There are so many issues to be addressed by SPR…the possibility that the Tiree Array will be online for the 2020 targets is totally bonkers…unless corners are cut and the local environment changed beyond recognition? and then when Tiree is ruined there will be a price to pay for all involved.

Just in case Scots Renewables had his/her tongue in cheek…Does anyone remember the wee boatie that did something nasty off the coast of….where was it?…Italy earlier in the year? Was it at Giglio, by any chance? Well, now then…the boy on the bridge switched off his instruments….but he didn’t make a good job of the steering, did he? Got a wee bit of a bang, and went home with a bit of Giglio Rock stuck in his side? Aye, well…bear in mind too that instruments can CAUSE accidents, rather than avoid them. A very large ship (the ‘Cina’?) ploughed into the Scillies because the Master was – yes – silly, and just kept his autopilot on the wrong course. 1998, was it? Brought lots of unexpected goodies to the Scillonians. I was once on the bridge of a CalMac ship when a routine check of the gyrocompass was carried out by standard reading of marks etc. The gyrocompass had a deviation of 3 degrees from true north. Not much, a landlubber may say, but if you continue the line on a piece of paper, you end up far off course…perhaps tangled up in wind turbines!

You’re not referring to the Torrey Canyon are you? – it ploughed into the Seven Stones reef in 1967 and dumped 120,000 tons of Kuwait crude, not really what anyone, let alone the Scillonians, would call ‘unexpected goodies’.

The ‘Torrey Canyon’ was a comparatively early catastrophe, and a pretty big one at that, Robert. What a mess! No, the ship I had in mind was the ‘Cita’ (correct name), a 300-ft container ship, which went ‘hard on’ in March 1997. The Master had fallen asleep on the bridge, having switched off the alarm that would have alerted him to a navigational problem…in the midst of a storm. So no help from GPS or plotters there! The containers washed ashore on the Scillies (mainly St Mary’s), and the people had a whale of a time with all the trucks, trainers, plastic sheets, golf bags, women’s underwear, socks and tee-shirts etc. etc. etc. that washed ashore. ‘For windows go this way….For golfing gear go that way…’ read the signs! As a result of the great bounty which it brought, the vessel was re-named ‘St Cita’. (-: My point is, though, that enhanced instrumentation does not eliminate accidents – it can cause them either through human complacency or stupidity, or through malfunctioning. That’s why we must not place more hazards in the ocean.

Thus the reason I had to use paper in my coastal skipper etc. SPR would place navigation beacons around the perimeter of the Array…their use in the Skerryvore environment has obviously not been tried…and the idea of “X” amount of lighting within and around the array…plus on the top of every Turbine add’s another dimension…LIGHT POLLUTION…we lose the seascape both day and night, plus the night skies.

And Stevenson’s greatest legacy, the iconic Skerryvore light, becomes but a twig in a forest of steel pines.

Donald The research you regard as “an absolute priority” actually started two or three years ago to discover what effect, if any, there might be on marine life from underwater turbines, e.g. by Dunstaffnage and in the Forth, as well as elsewhere. Ecological surveys have, obviously, been carried out in the Sound of Islay, both above and below water. As you must surely know, no such development can proceed without them nowadays. Birds and mammals have been included in the survey work. What other “implications” had you in mind?

You might as well be aware of the following too. I add these points because it reads like the “Pelican Brief”

SPR say the extension of Environmental studies has caused a years delay…this poses a monsterous question in relation to the environment V offshore wind on at least the west coast.

The more the input SPR put into environmental surveys, to unravel the complex ecological issues, the more the ecological issues come to the fore.

SPR wish rightly wish to understand what is in the area so they can mitigate impact…mitigation does not mean removal of impact, it means to reduce impact to “as low as is reasonably possible”…

The “low” bar in the case of the Tiree is obviously going to be quite high…but at what point is too high a reason to cancel the project ?

This bar is set in this case by the government of Scotland and/or ultimately the EU.

It is more that obvious that given the already extensive surveys carried out by the likes of the JNCC over 10 or so years in the proximate area of Tiree, that having SPA/MPA or SSSI status is not enough to stop a development. If it was then SPR would not be here.

One has to cast ones mind back to SPR’s comments at the original community consultation meeting…it was stated to the community by SPR that “…only the discovery of an exceptionally rare species would or could stop the project” .(or words to that effect).

Do we now then obviously assume that in the case of the Argyll aka Tiree Array, the bar was already set way back when, by the Scottish Government (?), and in the case of this project that the bar was set so low that the environment comes in second place to the development.

Only time will tell … but, there is definately a “smoking gun” issue in regards to why full SPA status has been so slow to arrive … until it does, another species following on from the Great Northern Diver debacle has now excuse the pun “raised it’s head” and again SNH have not (to my knowledge) raised the issue with either the developer or Marine Scotland… they have again missed, or delibrately neglected to add a species. as they did with the Great Northern diver…and as Historic Scotland did with the Skerryvore Lighthouse (they did not mention it was within the array area)

In the sublittoral zones (Skerryvore is a perfect example) of Tiree and also the south coast of Col, “the relatively exposed nature of the area restricted sedimentary habitats to coarser sands and gravels, in which the large cerianthid anemone Arachnanthus sarsi has been recorded for the first time in Britain”.

It never ceases to amaze me what information is out there if you keep looking and pushing…and SPR have an awfull lot of looking to complete…and SNH or the Scottish government have an awfull lot of explaining to do… as to why these issues are never mentioned!

And now another nail in the coffin that coincides with both the delay and the recent images.

The latest report by the JNCC (joint nature conservation committee) into MPA status… now shows Skerryvore is at the epicenter of basking shark activity on the west coast of Scotland ! So, in the summer months we have these incredible creatures at Skeeryvore in internationally important numbers…and in the winter months we have 49% of the UK’s population of Great Northern Divers ( an internationally protected species) Both the same area as the proposed Argyll Array.

Scottish Power Renewables will struggle to find mitigation methods to protect these species during both the construction phase and the operational phase. Of great worry to both species is “harassment, intentional or otherwise”…these items have and are already delaying the project…could these environmental issues finally put this project rightly, to rest ?

The SPR photo montages are certainly an eye-opener to the scale of the proposal. I’m not too concerned about the visual impact because I just don’t find wind turbines offensive to the eye – at least no more so than any of the other visible effects of day to day human life on the landscape – though that is of course just a personal view.

As Karl & Donald Meek say, there are many other much more important potential impacts in terms of navigation, marine wildlife, perhaps local climatic effects among others. These need to be properly investigated and shown to be acceptable. The endless scrapping over whether turbines can be hidden by strategically-held thumbs, or whether base structures can be seen or not, seems little more than a pointless distraction.

It is also a pity that newsroom does not attempt to balance the tone of FA’s coverage of the renewables issue with some research and comment on its potential benefits. Argyll is badly in need of some economic diversification and very little has so far been said on what opportunities the marine renewables industry may present, to help sustain and grow our communities in the wider context of Argyll.

It should also be borne in mind that this single array as proposed will have an installed capacity almost a third greater than the sum total of all the hydro-electric generation plant in Scotland. Its impacts have to be judged in that context: any type of energy installation of that size will have significant impacts on the local area in which it is sited.

If you want to deny the validity of opinions of anyone who does not live on Tiree, then I would suggest that a high proportion of objections to this project will have to be disregarded on similar grounds – certainly if the typical response to onshore wind planning applications is anything to go by.

Hello Tim, The images do shock and NTA have received an influx of response to the posting of the images. I personally have been looking at conceptual images of the project for around 3 years. As we all know picture paints a thousand words…in this case these words contain all the reasons why this project or projects in similar locations should not go ahead. Tiree was once known as a place on the shipping forcast…many thought we were just a buoy bobbing about in the atlantic somewhere out there in the blue beyond. But that has changed with the Array proposal…apart from Antartica I have had contact with every continent in regards to the array…the world is watching the goings on. This has become far more than a windfarm development in the middle of nowhere…and it is growing daily and with every tourist season and with every international windsufing event and with every visiting bird watcher…it is to coin a modern phrase, going viral. Of the many reasons as to why this project is a step to far…one sticks out like a boil on a nose. The environmental foot print is not acceptable…we cannot cut off our nose to spite our face. Scotland will head towards it’s targets without us (we have already met many of ours). Proposed wind farms from a single turbine up to hundreds in more (hopefully) appropriate locations are in the pipeline for Scotland and, these will remove the necessity to drop environmental protection standards in areas such as Skerryvore…if they don’t then the entire drive for wind based renewables is built on a rotten core.

I am continually called a NIMBY by those who have not spent the time to check developments in a case by case fashion…it goes with the job and in the case of the Argyll aka Tiree Array I take it as some warped form of compliment….

The construction of the Tiree array is not a panacea for reduction of Scotland’s CO2 footprint. It maybe the government and the developers using us as a test case to get the sloppy legislation in place for future projects. In all sincerity the rush for wind has left the legislation in it’s wake…this been the case, many people have lost faith in planning “with due care”. Planning that should be enforced rigorously to ensure that developments are both in context to their surroundings and that the local environment is not put at undue risk of damage are still in their embryonic stage. We on Tiree are blessed to live in such a place…the many JNCC reports etc, show how fragile and unique our environment is, it is on many levels, of international importance…to put this at risk with the installation of the Tiree Array is beyond any form of rational thinking…and this becomes more apparent as more information comes to light. SPR are duty bound to complete an EIA to support their application to build…economics and politics are, but should not be influencing decisions both the developer and government are making in relation to wilderness areas… As with the generation of the 1 to 1.8 GW if the array goes elsewhere the economic benefits…go elsewhere, but this will still be in Scotland. Tiree’s future lies in a different direction…we are ourselves reaping economic reward from Tilley, our island is thriving, our crime levels are extremely low as is unemployment, our tourist industry grows year on year…and all of this is down to our community members and the pristine environment we live in. Tiree is Tiree because of holistic location…this is not some sort of short bread tin romantic vision this is what the world is striving for… The pressure this industrial sword of Damocles is holding over the island is stifling…the reasons to drop the project NOW are more than apparent…any further time spent assessing what we already know, is damaging not only to all involved in Tiree but also to the credibility of all those involved in wind as a renewable resource. This project should be shelved and as suggested by the JNCC the waters around Tiree should be accredited with MPA and SPA status…we far exceed the criteria for these environmental protection measures. Economics of big business 7 politics aside…Ultimately there are no valid global environmental arguments to support an Array in the waters inshore to Tiree.. Crown Estates put this area out as a lease simply because of the depth of water and, the high prevailing winds…they opened this can of worms and it is now time for them to review their leasing methodology. SPR could be seen as a fall guy in many ways…much the same as I can be seen as a NIMBY…but that goes with the job.

You can not quote ‘installed capacity’ as being anywhere near the norm – last year was the windiest in living memory so somewhere near ‘installed capacity’ might have been achieved ( actually 31% although they claim 35% efficiency ) but by the same fluke of the weather this year it may only be 10% – and that is the real problem. And further if most of that output is produced overnight – where is the gain? How can anyone justify the immense costs involved ?

Malcolm – the installed capacity of hydro plant in Scotland is around 1.4GW, and the typical average load factor across the fleet is around 30-40%. This is about the same as the projected load factor for offshore wind, so the comparison is entirely valid in energy output terms.

Will more Glens have to be flooded to provide a “battery” facility for wind…or is the possibility of an export cable to Norway part of this plan ? If this does become the case…then the environmental footprint of wind is a true can of worms that needs further review…we will have folks all over Scotland and maybe Norway too… becoming NIMBY by proxy. Rather than in my case NIMBY by necessity.

‘..if most of that output is produced overnight..’ is there any evidence that most of a windfarm’s energy is produced ‘overnight’? (other, of course, than when there are more hours of darkness in winter months, when it could be argued that in northern Norway in mid winter all the energy is produced overnight)

The picture was intended as a general illustration of how offshore windfarms look from a distance. (in this case 15 km from the notional centre of the windfarm as quoted on Wikipedia–and also 125 m to blade tip.) I honestly don’t remember how far my thumb was from the lens. If it’s important to you I can restage the photo with a tape measure.

The point is that here is an offshore wind farm, and yes, it’s visible, but its overall impact on the seascape of the Solway Firth is really not all that great. The Argyll Array is obviously going to be bigger than that; but my point is that I suspect the visual impact has been exaggerated.

Not that there isn’t one.

As for the bases, it was only a suggestion. I’ll reiterate the point that the design at this stage appears to be entirely notional.

As for the horizon, it says on the SPR illustration that the nearest tower is 6.5km. Does that affect your calculations, Karl? If not, I am happy to be corrected.

Hi…doesn’t affect any calculations Pythagorean theorem has been around for a while LOL We all sometimes press the send button and then go “wait a minute, tht doesn’t sound like what I feelt” Well I tried to edit your post but I can’t help: “my point is that I suspect the visual impact has been exaggerated.” I have stood at the point these photographs were taken…with similar images…believe me if you did the same you would edit this comment out. I would even pay your ferry fare, feed you, house you and ply you with whisky…simply to take you, with these SPR images to the same locations…as long as in return you would give me your honest gut reaction …and I could quote it.

The picture you posted Stephen has no relevance in the Argyll aka Tiree discussion…it is akin to me posting an image with 130 canary wharf gerkins sized turbines in the firth of lorne…something Webcraft would no doubt support and Oban would then have a claim as a support hub, which would be handy as the Tourism industry would falter, the wildlife boats and yachts stop etc, etc, etc…

We have to take these images to be best case scenario, they are theoretical..an artists impression and, not the final goods.

And while not wanting to get into a peeing match over their validity…they are open to much critique, we have to remember that SPR at the moment do not know the exact location of each and every turbine…they do know that the amount of turbines has to add up to 1Gw minimum…and as better export availability arrives..a max of 1,8Gw. . There are enough environmental reasons not to go ahead with the project…the visuals just highlight the inappropriate nature of placing this type of industrial area near any pristine environment…its an entire farce, held up by tax payers money, commercial greed and political posturing.

Thanks, Alex. Sorry, as I am not a marine biologist, I do not follow the course of research or surveys naturally, so to speak – so if you could refer me to the published versions of the research/surveys, I’d be most grateful. My understanding (perhaps wrongly from BBC TV News the other night) is that the underwater turbines have only recently been proved to be viable, in the sense that one of these, when tested, provides the expected amount of electricity. So I ask, in ignorance, how scientists can work out what will happen to the environment when their model does not have the benefit of a trial run with a fully functioning turbine? That’s a problem for Islay, of course. I am not too bothered about underwater turbines – I’d be delighted if they were ‘the answer’, so that they could be placed effectively in other tidal flows (Pentland Firth?). I much prefer these to visible clutter above sea level. So, to Tiree….Other implications would be the turbulence/movement of waters and redirection of currents caused by the ‘pillars’ of the turbines below sea level, their effect on fish stocks in-shore, etc. Do the fishermen have anything to fear from the positioning of these turbines? I am not at all an expert on these matters. My main worry is about navigational hazards.

It would seem that the practicalities of installing and operating the Sound of Islay turbines are being refined with the experience gained with the test turbine of the same type that’s operating in Orkney waters – and that’s been featured on BBC news in the last few days. So how closely the environmental impact of the multiple Sound of Islay turbines will mirror that of the Orkney machine remains to be seen, as there must surely be limits as to how closely the effects in one location will be replicated elsewhere.

Hi Donald… Check with Sandy, Willy, Iain ref: the fishermen…all of the Tiree boys(possibly not McLennan) are anti-the development…the area is a spawning ground, in the main due to the high Oxygenation and the seabed been made up of many small canyons and gullies all filled with small gravel/coarse sand…this is the reason the Great Northern Divers/Sulair/Black Guillemot etc and in part…the Basking sharks/minke love the place…it’s also home to Spiny Lobster (protected) as well as the normal boil in the pan type…it’s the hunting ground for the Ceann a M’hara bird colony…If anybody knows whats out there it’s these boys. On another note I dropped you an email ref: wrecks 47+ since mid 19c.

Drop round sometime for a dram. Still have that pump for you to have a look at. Karl

This makes it sound as if plonking monopiles (or whatever) all over this stretch of seabed is almost guaranteed to cause widespread damage to a valuable ecosystem, so has this been picked up in the environmental impact study (or am I being naive?)

SPR’s EIA is ongoing…seems that SPR are trying to fill in any percieved gaps…lets remember JNCC etc are out there to find out what should or needs to be protected…SPR are out there to look at mitigation…or to look and see if mitigation is possible ! And yes if this project goes ahead…the damage will happen, at seabed/beneath the waves and on the surface…SPR are only now realising how much damage will occur. Ultimately how much environmental damage are the Scottish Government willing to allow for 6.5 billion GBP ?…and does SPR really want want to end up having world wide headlines saying it is going ahead with damaging areas already noted to be in need of full protection…It will do nothing for offshore wind renewables, or the green credentials this multi national uses to support it’s projects. The Scottish government also have to realise that this development is a step to far.

Confused – The oxygen content of seawater depends on a number of factors eg temperature and salinity. Pretty sure too, that excluding sea lochs where tidal flow may be restricted that the rest of the West Coast waters are fully saturated with oxygen. Are you saying the waters of Tiree are super saturated with oxygen and if so isn’t that detrimental to the growth and development of juvenile fish?

Hi I am just going on the JNCC/and Dipper 1981 documents. I would presume the higher oxygenation is due to the swell breaking over so many skerries in the Skerryvore area, the large tidal races, the near continual pounding of an Atlantic swell on shallow water…

“Are you saying the waters of Tiree are SUPER SATURATED with oxygen” No…you have said that…I did not say that please read my post again !

Also note the other contributing factors for good conditions, seabed, cover…kelp etc. It takes, I presume many contributing factors to make a sustainable and varied ecosystem…one of these being above average (whatever average is) O2 levels.

My name is George Wood, formerly a National Grid Power Systems Operations Engineer at both Regional and National Control Centres and laterly the person who developed the contractual and testing parameters of generation operations on the National Grid Network for Ancillary Services which included load management operation specifications for frequency response and reserve strategies. These strategies were carried over to the existing NETA balancing services.

I do believe that ‘K Le Pairs’ research and others have some merit in being critical of the minimal CO2 savings in the deployment of wind-turbines in Electricity Networks. Also, I believe that the more wind-turbines that are deployed, the situation will be exacerbated and that is why more interconnectors to Europe are currently being planned to export or import power to try and even out the wind energy generation outputs when excesses or shortfalls occur. In my view the economics of continuing the ‘dash for more wind turbines’ is nonsensical and will be detrimental to the UK’s ability to compete industrially because of the increased electrical energy costs that would be incurred by having a higher proportion of intermittent wind energy. Wind energy costs twice as much on-shore and three times as much off-shore to that of existing conventional energy power stations and the potential for using shale gas through CCGT’s at much lower costs should become an even lower cost alternative strategy, with lower CO2 emissions. These developments could replace existing power stations on existing sites without the need for new transmission connections. Also, existing nuclear power plants should be replaced by new nuclear developments on existing power station sites and again avoiding the need for new transmission networks.

I do not believe you can escape the double capacity build of power plants through the deployment of wind-turbines in the UK, as the possible huge scale of interconnection builds with Europe will not overcome the fact that in the middle of winter there can be high pressure weather zones over Europe and the UK at the same time. Power systems are designed to meet the highest electricity demand conditions which, as has been mentioned, will undoubtedly often occur at the same time in Europe and the UK. So, all-in-all, I doubt that a true economic case can be made for building many European interconnectors on the grounds of one system aiding the other to avoid capacity shortfalls and there must be a limited number of interconnectors that could be justified through daily transfer exchanges.

I offered Chris Huhne and DECC to set up a team of unbiased Engineers and Mathematicians that would, through my leadership, evaluate the UK’s power network to determine the major CO2 emissions question and all I received from Charles Hendry through my local MP, Jeremy Wright, was an answer that 1MW of energy generated by wind-turbines is 1MW of CO2 emissions saved from conventional energy generation. This is clearly NOT the case. The other sdignificant area of omission by DECC is the carbon footprint of the double power station build requirements to support the defficiencies of wind turbines, their enforced inefficient reserve operations and the increased carbon footprint of additional transmission network requirements and their power losses through remote connections. Clearly, Ofgem, as the electricty and gas Regulator, should be overseeing that these analyses are accurately and unbiasedly performed to benefit the nation ecomomically.

If there are minimal or no CO2 emmissions savings through the deployment of intermittent wind-turbines, which I believe is nearer the truth, then the vast sums of monies, in the many £-billions per year that would be incurred and charged to the public, cannot be justified.

Robert – again too much of a clever dick – I said the distances from Tiree to the mainland was about half – say again – the distance from Tiree to the mainland was about half. I can send you a wee piece of string to lay over your map to do the measurement if you want.

Malcolm: It’s just that you’re sometimes very careless with your ‘facts’ – the undersea section of the Shetland HVDC interconnector will be 320km long, and the total cost (including shore links and converter stations) is estimated at just over £300 million. Your suggestion that the undersea stretch of the Tiree Array cable will be half that length is surely quite misleading, as is the suggestion that the cost estimate for the Shetland link is £650 million – as far as I can see it was originally costed by National Grid at around £500 million, but this has been revised downwards. My point is that if you want to make sensible comments you should be more careful with your facts.

Thanks Karl for the figures re connection to the mainland – so I wasn’t far wrong – 4% is £240 million – add on a bit of an increase based on the fact that the renewable industry is apt to understate facts and of course we are quoting figures that are 2 years old – so say nearer to £300 million. I refer you Robert to my earlier statement above ! I would think now that discussions have taken place as to where it is coming ashore the estimate is now very much higher

Malcolm, ‘I would think now that discussions have taken place as to where it is coming ashore the estimate is now very much higher’ is rather an opaque statement, but do you mean that the proposed length of the undersea section of the Tiree array power connection has been substantially increased? Has the length been defined, and are you now able to suggest a cost by direct comparison with the length and cost of the Shetland connection?

Hi Malcolm et al… On route home to Tiree… Figure I am looking at here on my laptop is 6.5 Billion (2010) There are a few routes that SPR are looking at for the 1gw tie in at Dalmally…but none are certain…the main candidates look like Loch na Keal/Salen and then down the Sound and up near the Etive…the other is South of Mull offshore of Iona…(these will be massive engineering feats if it does indeed ever happen. I say this because there was talk a while ago of running down from Lewis etc, along the Minch, off East Ireland and eventually down to the lakes…this would take care of the present and next round of windfarms.) But it is all so hypothetical that the validity of second guessingat the moment is questionable. There is also the current and, most likely prolonged problem with availability of cable and suitable vessels…it’s a sellers market right now…and the installation companies are in general paid in euro !

SPR’s scoping submission to Marine Scotland had 500 turbines. You need to bear that in mind when looking at these things; try and imagine nearly double the number in SPR’s 6MW visualisation.

The turbine size in the scoping submission was 3.6MW; this is the current peak of the technology and by any sensible judgement is a development project and not proven technology eg SSE submitted their recent application for the Beatrice field with either 3.6 or 6.5MW turbines. Nobody is planning a 10MW field and nobody has yet to build a 6MW field.

Hi, The sum total will add up to anywhere between 500mw and 1,8Gw, the likely target is between 1Gw & 1.8Gw. SPR currently have available grid connection of 1 Gw. Seimens are testing a 6mw low weight machine (350t) primarily for offshore deployment. 3 years is the minimum test time acceptable for HSE regs etc… time:http://www.siemens.co.uk/en/news_press/index/news_archive/siemens-6-megawatt-wind-turbine.htm The 10mw British “Britannia” turbine project was shelved in 2010/11…however the Chinese are on route to building a 10mw unit:http://www.windpowermonthly.com/channel/offshore/news/1128827/Goldwind-developing-10MW-wind-turbine/ Lets not forget Offshore construction will now not begin until 2020…8 years time (-3 for testing), that gives the industry 5 years to come up with a 10mw turbine…given the massive changes in turbine tech during the last 5 years definately achivable if: the will and the finance is available. Back to your original…yes 500, reducing this number to say 180 would still be horrific…SPR would go for what ever is easiest to deploy…they may place 500 and re-power as the tech comes along…the reasoning behined releasing these visuals now is, to say the least odd ! but nothing happens without reason when a multi-national…bulti-million $ company that employs 33,000+ people world wide is involved with selling an environmentally damaging project project to the masses. Given the time scales we are looking at, there is every possibility that this type of inshore array (or any large array for that matter) will be redundant by the time of projected construction…and deep water offshore will be the new metaphor come buzz word…and future generations may question what was the logic behind pacing such huge industrial structures on the very same areas we were “supposedly’ trying to save.. Watch this space !

By 2011, of the 900 or so installed offshore turbines, over 600 showed signs of grout failure; some had dropped 40mm, a state one would describe as loose. DNV act as the classification society and withdrew their approval to all which would have made null and void the wind farm owners insurance and that *must* have had consequences for the financial arrangements eg the banks rely upon societies such as DNV to ensure they’re not being taken for a ride. We do need to be careful here; like the rating agencies S&P etc, the classification societies are paid by the people they are rating.

The problem isn’t so much the size but whether the foundation can hold them up. I would ask for a visualisation of 500 3.6MW turbines.

Karl – hope you are enjoying this West Coast weather and a well deserved pint ! Was there not an arrangement made with the local fishermen that the turbines would be 1Km apart – because they don’t appear to be on their plan drawing. Also the area of the site is always going to limit the number of turbines anyway ?